Anti-US Protest/Pro-War Protest

[Walter]

Vito, "Naturally I didn't hear the KPFK program you mention, but are you sure it wasn't someone on the station you should be attributing those views to rather than the station itself?"

Normally you'd be right (so to speak ) but this is a Pacifica station (WBAI in NY and a station in Berkeley CA are the other two) and prides itself in its near Socialist agenda. They view Kim Jong Il as the saviour of the Korean peninsula and are frequently decrying the Imperialist USA for its aggressive approach to dealing with North Korea.

Their "Free Speech Radio News" is identified by them as impartial and unbiased yet Bush is referred to only as Herr Bush in their news.

My problem is that I am forced to pay for this drivel with my taxes. I'm not forced to pay for Falwell's drivel and am free to ignore it, which I am happy to say I do.

I'm also happy to say that KPFK is, by its own actions, marginalized. They lost an action brought by a listeners' group a few years ago and are about to be held in contempt of court for failure to comply with the verdict.

Oh yes. The verdict. KPFK (and Pacifica) were found to have violated the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its hiring and promotion practices and were obligated to institute a diversity program on or before January 1, 2002.

And yet I have no choice but to pay my taxes to support this outfit or go to jail. That, to me, is the supreme offense.

[ItWillNeverWork]

Walter, I can assure you that it is not the view the majority on the left that the CIA engineered the Istanbul bombings. To attribute the comments of some silly local radio station to the agenda of an entire political community is just misguided. You will find the truth more easily if you distinguish between the crackpots and the rest of us.

Stonewall: Your facetious comments were intended to imply that the CIA did not train Osama Bin Laden were they not? So in what way have I misundederstood your sarcasm?

[vito]

I imagine you are talking about cpb funding, which is actually a fraction of the funding of any public radio station. Like the nea, the cpb was founded on the premise that our culture is enriched by encouraging a greater diversity of expression than would be produced by unhindered market forces. With right-wing blowhards taking over commercial radio and major networks coming under the control of a handful of mega-corporations, it seems to me there's some wisdom in that.

Maybe you don't agree, and if so, you and people who think the way you do can try to get congress to eliminate the cpb. Like with the nea, that's been threatened over the past couple of decades, but there's never been enough support to do it. Too many people, including many to the right-of-center, see the value of providing forums for ideas that can't be used to sell Dodge trucks or Miller Lite.

As long as that's the case, you'll just have to put up with having a few pennies of your tax bill make it to KPFK, just as I have to put up with the Bush administration spending a much greater amount from my tax bill on things I wish they wouldn't.

Anyway, it seems like you listen to KPFK and get a lot of benefit from it (i.e. knowing what your enemies think), so maybe you should pay for it. Have you made your pledge this year?

[Walter]

Looks like someone tried, but failed, to post using my name. Oh well, it happens. I wonder if the post was deleted or if it was some silliness.

VITO said,

"I imagine you are talking about cpb funding, which is actually a fraction of the funding of any public radio station. Like the nea, the cpb was founded on the premise that our culture is enriched by encouraging a greater diversity of expression than would be produced by unhindered market forces. With right-wing blowhards taking over commercial radio and major networks coming under the control of a handful of mega-corporations, it seems to me there's some wisdom in that."

Interesting perspective. The Left cannot maintain a viable listener base and cannot deliver customers to commercial sponsors so the Left feels that federal grants must be used to subsidize otherwise lonely, isolated and non-resonating points of view.

The talk radio programming is all profit driven. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Rush, Sean, etc. didn't attract an audience they would be yesterday's news. If Left wing talk resonated with a listening base, the airwaves would be filled with the likes of Mario Cuomo, Michael Jackson (the LA talk host), etc.

Vito, let's say the Left had a successful series of talk radio shows and the right was ignored.

Would you still say, "the cpb was founded on the premise that our culture is enriched by encouraging a greater diversity of expression than would be produced by unhindered market forces" when public radio stations that focused on right wing agendae were funded (in part) with your tax dollars?

By the way, yes I did pledge to KPFK. In a letter I promised to send them $100.00 (plus another $100.00 match from my employer - yes one of those "corporate greed" outfits they hate so) but only after they met one condition. That they complied with the court order to diversify and were free to pursue their normal business.

I told them I did not want to pay their legal fees but was happy to support their operating costs.

They sent me a mug, but no reply.

Curious folks. Do as I say, don't do as I do!

[vito]

Walter said:

Looks like someone tried, but failed, to post using my name. Oh well, it happens. I wonder if the post was deleted or if it was some silliness.

the weeniebags are out in force!

Interesting perspective. The Left cannot maintain a viable listener base and cannot deliver customers to commercial sponsors so the Left feels that federal grants must be used to subsidize otherwise lonely, isolated and non-resonating points of view.

If it was just "the left" that saw the value of supporting non-profit community radio and tv, there wouldn't be a cpb.

The talk radio programming is all profit driven. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Rush, Sean, etc. didn't attract an audience they would be yesterday's news. If Left wing talk resonated with a listening base, the airwaves would be filled with the likes of Mario Cuomo, Michael Jackson (the LA talk host), etc.

Interesting phenonmenon, talk radio.

Vito, let's say the Left had a successful series of talk radio shows and the right was ignored.

Would you still say, "the cpb was founded on the premise that our culture is enriched by encouraging a greater diversity of expression than would be produced by unhindered market forces" when public radio stations that focused on right wing agendae were funded (in part) with your tax dollars?

As long as they were non-sectarian, non-discriminatory and met other cpb guidelines, I'd like to think that I would. Remember, hypocrisy is a right-wing thing.:-)

By the way, yes I did pledge to KPFK. In a letter I promised to send them $100.00 (plus another $100.00 match from my employer - yes one of those "corporate greed" outfits they hate so) but only after they met one condition. That they complied with the court order to diversify and were free to pursue their normal business.

Excellent! Tip: you can help your local public station a little more by declining the pledge gift. You probably have enough mugs already anyway. ;D

[Walter]

Vito:

"Remember, hypocrisy is a right-wing thing."

Yep. Sure is. The right can spot hypocrisy a mile away. Problem is the hypocritical left does it so frequently and so close up and personal, it takes no special ability to spot the hypocrisy.

Example, talk radio as currently practiced involves call-ins by listeners.

KPFK had only one call-in show in its lineup and closed it down after they received too many calls about their hypocritical position on diversity in the workplace.

KLAC (a Los Angeles talk radio station that had as its theme, "Not just facts, feelings," and a left oriented slate of hosts) had a call-in format that crashed and burned. Not because they got contrarian points of view; to their credit they were balanced; but because they got no callers. Their ratings were awful...despite a ton of development and promotion expenditures.

No one wanted to listen. Yes they had the yellers, the over the top inciters (like Rush) and all the elements that, if their message resonated, would have packed 'em in.

They went to an all music format 7 months after they started.

[ItWillNeverWork]

Any public media should have a non-partisan agenda and several independant watchdogs should be employed to make sure the media stuck to its mandate.

I dont care if you are from the left, right or centre, public broadcasting should be regulated to be as impartial as is possible. This is, after all, the point of its existence not to mention an essential part of a democracy. People need to be informed not brainwashed.

[vito]

Walter said:

KLAC (a Los Angeles talk radio station that had as its theme, "Not just facts, feelings," and a left oriented slate of hosts) had a call-in format that crashed and burned. Not because they got contrarian points of view; to their credit they were balanced; but because they got no callers. Their ratings were awful...despite a ton of development and promotion expenditures.

No one wanted to listen. Yes they had the yellers, the over the top inciters (like Rush) and all the elements that, if their message resonated, would have packed 'em in.

Like I said: interesting phenomenon, talk radio. If one were to judge by the relative popularity of right-wing and left-wing gasbags on radio and tv, one might reasonably guess that our nation was 90% or so reactionary conservative. But that's not the case, is it?

My take on it is that their appeal is psychological: these guys give vent to the sort of selfish, vindictive, judgemental side that we all have within us, but that we have to repress to get along in a functioning society. The whole message of talk radio is "I got mine, if someone else ain't got his tough! He can go out and get his own! If I tries to take mine, though, I oughta be able to blow him away! If some other country bothers us we oughta just nukem!" It's like being back on the playground again lifting skirts and beating up on the weenies.

Face it, nobody wants to tune in for three hours of screaming about peace, compassion, generosity and forgiveness. Hell, I'm a liberal and I'd rather listen to Rush than listen to that!

[Walter]

Any public media should have a non-partisan agenda and several independant watchdogs should be employed to make sure the media stuck to its mandate.

Whom would you appoint as these "watchdogs?" Why can't the public choose what's right for them?

I dont care if you are from the left, right or centre, public broadcasting should be regulated to be as impartial as is possible. This is, after all, the point of its existence not to mention an essential part of a democracy. People need to be informed not brainwashed.

Again, whom would you have establish the regulations?

Before you suggest a strong big brother approach to broadcasting you need to think about Al Jazeera and how they are managed and controlled.

Examples:

Would you want John Ashcroft appointing the independent watchdogs you would have monitoring the broadcasts?

How would you have the independent watchdogs handle the Reagan documentary on Sunday night?

If Dan, Peter and Tom continued to report the news their "special" way would you employ the watchdogs to shut them down?

If Katie continues to carry the water for the Democrats should she be shut down?

As for your second point, regulation of public broadcasting:

I agree that it should be fact based, but almost all reportage today is fact based. The bias comes from omissions of salient facts and/or emphasis on less relevant facts.

Apart from that I am a strong supporter of any listener supported programming for the principal reason that it is an important alternative outlet that would otherwise not exist.

I feel Pacifica (and KPFK) perform a valuable service (I don't agree with their point of view but feel there is a definite benefit to everyone by having that point of view heard.

I just don't think our tax dollars should be used to subsidize such outlets. (I also don't think our tax dollars are appropriately used for arts funding either. I love our LA Philharmonic, but many have no interest in classical music. Why should thair tax dollars go to funding Esa Pekka Salonen and not P. Diddy? (Same issue, different object.))

[vito]

ItWillNeverWork said:

Any public media should have a non-partisan agenda and several independant watchdogs should be employed to make sure the media stuck to its mandate.

I dont care if you are from the left, right or centre, public broadcasting should be regulated to be as impartial as is possible. This is, after all, the point of its existence not to mention an essential part of a democracy. People need to be informed not brainwashed.

From the way you spell "centre" I'm guessing you're from one of those countries that actually has a well-funded and powerful public media sector. That is not the case in the US, where the most public media can hope for is to provide a tiny taste of an alternative to commercial media that range from predominantly conservative (radio and cable TV) to milquetoast corporate conventialism (broadcast TV). If in certain markets a public outlet broadcast programs that are predominantly left-of-center, that is not necessarily an injustice. The mandate of the cpb is to provide what the big guys can't or won't. Who needs more of the same?

[MO]

I don't believe any media should be publicly funded. Let the free market do its job.

Broadcast news is decidedly to the left. The only conservative option it FNC which may slant slightly to the right. Conservatives dominate talk radio because that's who gets the ratings. The fact that most people don't want to listen to their country being bashed is no excuse for the traitorous leaches to steal from people to make their voices heard.

[Chuck]

The fact that most people don't want to listen to their country being bashed is no excuse for the traitorous leaches to steal from people to make their voices heard.

Repubs hold the White House and both houses of Congress.

NPR asks for money but cannot demand gov't money.

Therefore, who, pray tell, are the traitorous leaches to whom you refer?

Perhaps the Repubs? After all, can't they juist say, "No more public funding for NPR?" Further, should they change the IRS Code and remove the deductibility of contributions to public broadcasting?

Just asking.

[vito]

MO said:

I don't believe any media should be publicly funded. Let the free market do its job.

right, we only need more "survivor" ripoffs, jerry springer wannabes and cookie cutter sitcoms. Conservatives are usually the first to say tv is a cultural wasteland. Market forces are what create that wasteland.

Broadcast news is decidedly to the left.

LMAO! To the left of David Duke perhaps.

The only conservative option it FNC which may slant slightly to the right.

"slightly" ;D

The fact that most people don't want to listen to their country being bashed is no excuse for the traitorous leaches to steal from people to make their voices heard.

Liberals don't bash the country. They bash the current government. It's sad that you equate the two.

If anyone bashes the *country* it's right wing talk-show hosts: you know, we're all a bunch of lazy, depraved whiners, overrun by homosexuals and wetbacks and pedophiles; things are so crappy that we all need to pack several kinds of rods, etc. etc.

As for the rest, Chuck has hit the nail on the head. This is just the way right-wingers think, Chuck, if one can call it thinking. Thirty years ago the neighborhood was ruined if one black family moved in. Now, if one lousy underfunded public station in LA is spouting something resembling real left-wing sentiments, then it's like the skunk at the barbecue, the whole damn country just isn't any fun any more.

[Ironside]

Walter said:

Check this out:

International A.N.S.W.E.R (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)

Contrary to what this organization proclaims, most of the protesters are not against war. They are against America waging a war of self-defense. They are against Israel waging a war of self-defense. They are against free nations waging a war against the sworn enemies of freedom. But they are not against the war that is being waged on America by militant Islamic fundamentalists.

Who wants the war on Terror stopped?
Certainly, not I. Not until it's won.
Of course how do ever end Terror?

That's like law enforcement putting an end to murder.

Anyway, it's the war in Iraq, we protest.

What threat was Iraq to America, you bunch-0-wussies?

Well, Where are those evil WMD?
Nukes?

In the meantime al Qaeda is rebuilding and attacking western interests again!

Keep the spin going, it's all you left to gasp onto.

[MO]

Repubs hold the White House and both houses of Congress.

NPR asks for money but cannot demand gov't money.

Therefore, who, pray tell, are the traitorous leaches to whom you refer?

Unfortunately, there are still Democrats in positions of power. I can just imagine the screaming from the crybabies if the Republicans tried to cut funding for NPR. Even when Republicans only try to hold spending increases at the level of inflation they are accused of "cuts." The traitorous leaches are the liberals of NPR and their minions.

right, we only need more "survivor" ripoffs, jerry springer wannabes and cookie cutter sitcoms. Conservatives are usually the first to say tv is a cultural wasteland. Market forces are what create that wasteland.

Conservatives aren't demanding that the tax payers pay for more conservative shows. Many just aren't watching the trite.

Broadcast news is to the left of Lenin. That is why FNC is so successful.

things are so crappy that we all need to pack several kinds of rods, etc. etc.

Noooo! You don't hate the country! You just can't state your case without taking a crack at the Constitution!

Well, Where are those evil WMD?

Probably, Syria. They had a year to move them while the UN was wringing their hands. They are the bunch-o-wussies.